martinguerre

we are talking about antiquity here...we've got a much broader body of texts, evidence, etc... for Jesus than we do for a great many historical figures. i won't say the record isn't complicated. it is. but i think the major distortion of this argument is that it does not acknowledge context. the subtle hint to claiming Jesus did not exist is that his memory has been entirely conjured, and that conjuring may have been willful.

certainly, the process and politics of memory have been at work in this case. i would be a fool to deny that. but it staggers my imagination to try to concieve of a "he didn't exist" movement forming. so too does it defy my powers of creativity to think of another historical figure that would be subjected to the same level of doubt. the NT is a self-interested text. and?

So is Josephus. So is Seneca. So is Homer. So is Thucyidides. So is every other "history" that is written then. Hell, so is every history now. All evidence from that time period is difficult to analyze, and contains different assumptions about what truth, history, bias, and authorship means. This is not a good reason to throw it all out, or cast universal aspersions over the scholarship on that era.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

hypnotic4502

well said,i think he was pure myth.......a composite of older religious icons and ideas.

__________________
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
-Isaac Asimov

Mantus

He was a lunatic and believed what he said so he counld not be a liar. Yet his condition was inspired by God so he wans't crazy either. He went on to create the cult of Chistianity which became a religion and christians called him their Lord. History being rather vague from the those years past turned his story into something mythical.

ForgottenKnight

It is sad that your views on individuals being hypocrites have turned you and many others away from the church. But one must understand that to be a Christain is to be a hypocrite. Only God is good and perfect. We Chirstians are humans who are inspired to be like Jesus and God, but as we are not perfect, we are bound to be hypocrites. Would God want us speaking to each other in that manner? Certainly not. But it is bound to happen due to not being perfect, even if Christian. Also, on deciding who is and who is not Christian, many claim to be Christain yet don't practice the values and beliefs which it entitles. Thus many claim to be Christain who are not in their hearts.
[Prayer]May the Lord have mercy on them and cast the Holy Spirit upon them so that their hearts may be filled with the love and joy of Chirst, and change their ways to show the love of God rather than the hate of Satin. Amen.[/Prayer]

That is incorrect. It is quite likely that they were the same desciples who witnessed the acts of which they write about due to the detail of which they are written. Plus there is the fact that some were written in as short as 15 years after Jesus rose from the dead, which makes it more likely that it was written by the desciples who were with Jesus when He did such works. Which brings me to a question that needs to be considered on determining if the writings were truth or myth: Had it not been true at the time it was written, wouldn't the people have disregaurded it rather than embrace it? For example, if someone today in 2005 were to write a historical book which stated that in 1990, a single alien visited Washington DC, destroyed congress, attempted to united the world under one puppet government to turn us into slaves, and was only stopped by the firing of fifty nuclear warheads at his spaceship, or stated another story of spectacular events, would we not throw it out as garbage? Certainly we would! We would think back and say, "I was around in 1990, and I don't recall hearing of anything like that ever happening..." So in the case of Jesus, so many of the witnesses embraced the works that is shows they are the truth and that Jesus actually existed, thus was not a myth.

If anyone has any questions about Chistianity, Jesus Christ the Lord, and God, then I suggest you direct them towards your local Christian or Catholic church. You are likely (but not guaranteed) to get a far better answer from the Priests and those who work for the Church than from anyone here.

__________________
"People say I'm strange, does that make me a stranger?"

Lunawalk

I think Jesus was an ordinary man mythized after his death.

sbscout

not to hijack the thread, but...

could this question not be asked about any significant religious figure?

What about Moses? Was he a real person?
Muhammad?
Paul?

Is historical proof necessary for the message to be valid?

If the writings of the faithful are the basis for all belief in a certain religion, subsequent followers naturally add their belief systems as they adopt the faith.

Did Adam and Eve exist? No contemporaries existed...

Did Jesus' birth and death actually occur on the now-accepted dates, or were these dates co-opted to coincide with pre-existing festivals/holidays?

To study religion soley with a historian's eye requires the closing of the other eye... the eye that attempts to study the faith and its effect on the faithful.

I now return you to the original thread.

__________________
Always question authority... it'll keep the bastards on their toes!

Jinn

Forgottten: No. Its called fiction. People write enchanting tales of miracles and fantastical situations all the time, and they are not disregarded because they don't match the facts. People embrace them because they like the ideals and emotion that they evoke, not because they're factually correct. I didn't disregard Star Wars or LOTR because I didn't believe a place called Middle Earth or Tattoine could exist.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

ForgottenKnight

Star Wars and LOTR aren't religions. There's a huge difference. I'm saying that had it nont been true, then it wouldn't be accepted. Istead it would have naturally died (without some sort of brainwashing technique as Sciencology uses, which was and is not used in Christianity).

I have to say that I am extremely dissapointed in how so many of you refuse to accept that Jesus is Christ the Lord, savior of our souls, forgiver of sins, son of the one true God, and a real person who existed in history. It's sad for me to see so many lost souls.

__________________
"People say I'm strange, does that make me a stranger?"

asaris

Plus, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the genre of fiction not exist when the gospels were written?

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

hannukah harry

you are correct that star wars and LOTR aren't relgions. but if those stories had been told 2000 years ago, they very well may have been. things which are not true are accepted all the time. just look at conspiriacy theorists. think about how many people believe that the roswell crash was actually an unidentifed flying object. all it would take for that to be 'true' is for teh govt. to say it was a UFO (even if they were lying).

a better example would be scientology. do you think there's any truth to it? probably not. for an intents and purposes, right minded people think it's a cult. and guess what? for the first 200-300 years of christianity, it was essentially considered a backwoods cult. it wasn't until constantine became emperor of rome that it was able to really spread. give scientology an ounce of that kind of credibility and in a thousand years (especially in a 'primative' time) it could become as big as christianity is.

but scientology was just made up, you say! well, so was christianity. i have yet to see any proof that jesus was definatly a real person, let alone that he performed those miracles associated with him. i've said taht before (and think i may have forgotten to reply to a post), but i'd love to see some primary sources. some sort of proof given by people were contemporaries of jesus. it's really easy for someoen to start a cult and then have another write about him 30-60 years after his death.

i have to say that i'm very disappointed that you feel the need to patronize us. i'd say that if ti weren't so sad that this is your real opinion, this would be trolling.

have you ever heard of homer's illiad and oddessy? oedipus rex? greek drama was pure fiction (although i'm sure some of the stories were believed to be true or based on truth). science fiction i would think would be another issue. but telling stories, made up stories, are probably as old as language itself.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

martinguerre

i don't know if the greeks understood drama as "pure" fiction. it was often didactic...intended to convey a message or teaching.

i think asaris points out something very smart.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

hannukah harry

but how would this be different than the bible? made-up stories meant to convey a message, a teaching.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

asaris

The difference is that the Bible makes obvious claims towards its historicity. The one which most immediately comes to mind is when Paul states that if Christ has not risen from the dead, then we are fools. The Greek tragedies either also claim to be historical (for example, the Iliad), and are generally accepted to be based in historical fact (at least, since that one German guy excavated Troy); or, they make no real claim towards historicity.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

martinguerre

well...you're using made up as perjorative. frankly, i think the gospels are a supremely creative effort to relate and record the work of God through Christ Jesus. i say creative because they are at times ahistorical...not to state that they are in express disagreement with facts or known histories...but that they operate outside of that realm. their power is not in their ability to record a sequence of events, but help recreate for the reader the experience of being present at a revelation.

to be honest...i don't think the reality of the ressurection has a whole lot to do with what we moderns would call history. some people start asking questions about "if there was a video camera in the tomb...what would it show?" and it's at that point i realize that i'm not in the same conversation. asaris...i guess i'd say that i'm not sure that we're using the word historicity in the same manner. i mean it as "grounded in certain context, events, and recalled expereience." i don't think the reality of the ressurection depends on emprical certainty...

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

asaris

By historical, I just mean something like "Actually happened at some point in the past, in the same sense in which my eating yogurt for breakfast also happened in the past". Here, at least, I'm just using 'historicity' as a noun-ified version of historical.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

hannukah harry

while the bible does make claims that it is true, the old testament doesn't match up very well with any other records/evidence of the past. the new testament may be a bit better, but as (again, someone correct me if i'm wrong) there are no contemporary primary sources that even mention jesus, the bible's historical value is suspect.

just because it claims to be true doesn't make it so.

i'm not seeing how your reference to what paul said is relevant. the only thing i get from it is that he's telling us 'hey, stupids! look what we tricked you into believing!!! suckers!!!!'

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

roachboy

yikes--yet another philo thread that i dont think can be coherently added to in a message board. so i'll revert to teaching form and do things like say go read a book.

1. on the question of anachronism at the level of starting assumptions for interpreting texts like teh gospels--this is tricky because you have lots of transpositions in the intervening 200 years or so, not least of which is in the meaning of belief, the definition of history, the redefinition of myth--paul veyne's book "did the greeks really believe their myths" is short and quite good on all these questions. so for example to think about history in its contemporary form--which is rooted in particular protocols for treating the factoid base of interpretations, particular ways of legitimating arguments, particular assumptions as to quasi-scientific status--as if this conception applied in the 1-2nd century ad is folly. you simply are not dealing with the same kind of texts--the question of "historical accuracy" in the contemporary sense is moot when it comes to them.

2. the various jesus stories often get situated in the context of a genre of semi-mythical travelling wise man/magician stories--i think this was mentioned earlier--for example, apollonius of tyana. these travelling wise men/magicians probably constitue a genre template for the jesus stories.

3. the question of divine inspiration is confusing as well--you had lots and lots of alternative texts about jesus, etc. generated by gnostics--all equally legit in their claims to divine inspiration until the council of nicea came along and the folk who were there decided that divine inspiration had already stopped at some arbitrary previous point. well because if it hadnt, you woudlnt really need a church, now would you? what would it mediate?
anyway, the select criteria for whcih gospels were and were not included in the canon that alot of folk now take as necessary and eternal was rooted not in any conception of "historical accuracy" (see point 1) but in considerations of theology--the texts selected tended to be more hierarchically organized at the philosophical level.
they certainly are not the most entertaining, however.
give me the gospel of the teenage jesus any day--thomas i think.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

TM875

I second that. Jesus probably was one of the most philanthropic people of ancient days. He helped the poor, and tried to teach some type of goodness towards others. However, the whole religion and son-of-god thing...well, that's another story.

The Bible is a collection of natural and cultural events that have most likely happened in the past, then romanticized and painted together as if they actually had some meaning.

__________________
"I've made only one mistake in my life. But I made it over and over and over. That was saying 'yes' when I meant 'no'. Forgive me."

ForgottenKnight

And I'd have to think that if your consistant anti-christian views weren't your real opinion they would be trolling as well. I think we've reach the point where no matter what I say, you're going to say it's wrong, and no matter what you say, I'm going to say it's wrong. So I think we all need to stop trying to prove each other wrong when we know that neither of us is going to budge in our position.

__________________
"People say I'm strange, does that make me a stranger?"

hannukah harry

i'm not anti-christian. i'm anti-religion in general. i'm anti-asshats (which unfortunatly, living in america, i've found from my personal experience that most of the major asshats i've met indentify as being 'christian'). and i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying give me some sort of proof, some sort of evidence. but you seem unable. i'm not trolling, i questioning your position based on the lack of proof that you or anyone else has shown me. big difference. crying 'whoah, pity all the poor lost souls' is nothing more than patronizing.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

knowledge2

^....You have lumped two things together that cannot be lumped together..evidence and proof. If you want evidence for the *Bible then there is an exorbitant amount...but if you want proof, that is a different story. There really isnt any "proof" of anything. People like to think that science provides proof but it does not..it only provides evidence. Pure science is based on theory and evidence; what scientists give us is simply their interpretation of the two things.

That being said..I think Christians are usually placed on the defensive side of this issue so i'd like to turn the tables here and ask you to provide me with proof (keep in mind the aforementioned concept), and then you will find yourself in quite the same quandry that christians are in.

__________________


"I die daily..."

Rdr4evr

A myth, a fictional character for the weak to follow.

Johnny Pyro

Mel Gibson should be crucified! Jesus Rules!

__________________
"From delusion lead me to truth, from darkness lead me to light, from death lead me to eternal life. - Sheriff John Wydell